.

Mitt’s On … And So Is The Election!

Mitt Romney is on the verge of becoming President, but will Massachusetts' Unenrolled voters support him?

Rather than engaging in (by now) redundant commentary regarding the first debate between President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, let’s just stipulate that Romney had a great night, while it seemed that Obama thought if he could blink his eyes fast enough his magic teleprompter would suddenly appear. No such luck.

And, let me agree in advance with my Liberal “friends” that one night does not an election make, that history is filled with examples of challengers defeating an incumbent President in their first debate, that Obama will doubtless be as formidable as expected in the next debates, and that Romney will have to sustain his energy and even improve his performance to win.  Hopefully this will eliminate some of the defensive dismissals and rationalizing retorts from the usual suspects, who should be more upset at the prospect of a de-billed Big Bird than a de-selected Obama.

Instead, I am directing these comments once again to the Unenrolled voters. 

In a CNN poll after the debate, presented as a “scientific” sampling by Wolf Blitzer, 67% of the voters believed that Romney had won the debate.  Apart from the size of the margin, there are at least two remarkable things about this result: (1) 25% of the voters actually believed that Obama had won the debate, with the remaining 8% undecided; (2) the combined percentage of “non Romney” supporters in this result (33%) is roughly equivalent to the 37% registered Democrats in Massachusetts, so there is some relative symmetry. 

Assuming that the 25% voters who felt that Obama had won the debate represent  the most delusional liberals among the Democrats, what the vast majority of America undeniably said in the CNN poll is that Romney is the better candidate, with the better view of the role of government, and clearer vision for the future course of America.  So, with this poll as a scientific indicator, should we really believe that Obama has a 25%-28% point lead over Romney in Massachusetts?   Or, have Massachusetts’ Unenrolled voters been Stockholm Syndromed to the same level of political incoherence as Bay State Democrats?

I have devoted a lot of attention to Unenrolled voters in prior pieces, openly wondering if so-called Independent voters are “noble, naïve or just not interested” in the political scene. These pieces drew scores of comments, many from outraged readers who specifically noted that Unenrolled voters had purposely disassociated themselves from the Parties to enable them to vote for the “best candidate”.

So, unenrolled Massachusetts’ voters, what did the 51% of you see in the debate? Who is the best candidate? It’s up to you.

While you are thinking about this, I think it is time to remember a simple fact that has been ignored around here for too long. Mitt Romney is from Massachusetts.  He is one of us and that is a very good thing. He raised his family here. He was successful in his business career here. He was the governor here, despite being a Republican.  He talks of Massachusetts as “my State.”  He is proud of what he accomplished here. And though Democrats do not give him his due, Mitt has mattered for Massachusetts.  What part of this is bad for us?

I am not sure if Democrats understand, let alone care, how difficult it is to be a Republican in Massachusetts.  We are such a political minority that I suspect that most Democrats in this State know few, if any Republicans.  Most Republican candidates, Senator Brown included, do not even note their Party affiliation on their signs, for fear of instant derision from Democrats.

What we get from this is that Republican State Senators can hold their meetings in a broom closet, and not disturb the brooms. There are so few House Republicans that they cannot even procedurally require roll call votes to ensure majority party accountability to their constituents. Consequently, we all get closed door deals, anonymous voice votes, and one-party corruption as a result.  And then there is the Boston Globe and other media that cater to, and have protected the Democrats from their excesses and transgressions even before the glory days of Ted Kennedy – a lifetime of politics for me. Is this what we want?  Is this the government we need and deserve?

Despite all of this, Mitt Romney – a Massachusetts Republican - is on the verge of becoming President of the United States due to his significant management and problem solving skills, and his record of success and achievement.  He is the political “ghost buster” who has arrived on the scene when his Country needs him. We should be proud of him.  Massachusetts should support him.

Unless you are a hypocrite of the most partisan order, you claim in your comments that you want the political gridlock to end. You say you want common sense solutions, not ideological impasse.  You want bi-partisanship.  During the debate America heard how Mitt Romney used his CEO experience and skills to work together with Massachusetts Democrats to achieve great things – such as the Massachusetts Health Plan.  They heard about him meeting weekly with, listening to, and working with Democrat leaders.  Don’t think for a moment that this did not have a very powerful and positive effect on the Independent voters across the Country.  Why not here in Massachusetts?  Or, are our Unenrolled voters that much different from the rest of the Country too?

If America is to work, the parties must work together. We all know this, and this is why we also know that Scott Brown is the better candidate than Elizabeth Warren if we really do want the Washington logjam to be broken.

On June 26, I published the appended piece in Patch titled, “10 Reasons Why Mitt Romney Takes Massachusetts."  Please take a look.  I stand by this admittedly longshot prediction, but it is up to the Unenrolled voters to make it happen. We know what the Democrats will do because they cannot help themselves.

However, you, by your majority status, can help Massachusetts help America.  We have seen Obama for four years.  You know what he has done, and where he wants America to go. If this is what you want, then you’ve got what you want.  If not, Mitt Romney – a Republican from Massachusetts - has a different plan and a different direction.

So, once again I ask, “What do you want America to be, today, tomorrow and for the future of your grandchildren”?

And, since you wanted the freedom to vote for the “best candidate,” who is the best candidate to make America what you want it to be?  Time to choose.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Jim Hatherley October 09, 2012 at 01:45 AM
Thank you, Steve. Yes, there is a major difference between equality of opportunity and equality of result. Freedom vs. free stuff. What is very disappointing is we have a President who talks about everyone paying their "fair share" when half the people pay zero share, and playing "by the same rules" when we have had Government sponsored discriminatory processes in place for the past 50 years. We need capitalism, not utopia.
Jim Hatherley October 09, 2012 at 01:12 PM
Andy, thanks again. Let me respond directly - absolutely yes! And, I love your end note. Very nice, but it sadly reflects what happens when the "entitled majority" begins to panic. We begin to get blaming or excuse making. After the debate it was first the altitude. Then there was some unknown crisis that was on his mind. And then the thought that Obama did not want to vigorously counter-debate for fear of appearing angry. And now, Romney is a liar and a cheater. Obama was so stunned by Romney's lies that he was unable to respond. Amazing. It could not possibly have been that Obama cannot defend his record, and that Romney was excellent at revealing what everyone knows - even if the 25% who thought he actually won the debate are in a state of cognitive denial. Believe me when I say this, Andy, but one of the greatest dangers in America right now is that the people do not believe - or trust - their government. They see it as corrupted. You can rationalize about the BLS stats etc, but nobody believes the number - not credible/defies common sense. The people don't believe the actual cost of Obamacare. In fact, they don't believe the projected cost of any government program because they can all read the Debt scoreboard. What do we want America to be? How about better government and lower cost of government? How about a Press that reports the news and not their bias? And how about an end of class warfare and hyper-partisanship? And leadership?
GM November 02, 2012 at 02:56 PM
Jim, I'm late posting, but I just saw this blog. Your repeated questions to unenrolled voters prompted me to respond. I'm unenrolled. What I'm writing here is my opinion, but I don't think I'm alone in my views -- I'll restrict my comments to the Republican side of the ledger. You've done a reasonable job calling out key liabilities on the Democratic side. My only comment on that side is my concern about the recent idea of establishing a Dept. of Business in the Cabinet. Besides helping to institutionalize our shift toward a government directed command economy, it left me wondering what exactly the Secretary of Commerce has been doing for the past 4 years. Here's where I think the Republicans get it wrong - 1. Maintaining the current long term capital gains tax structure is a losing proposition because it basically says that people who work to earn their living should be taxed more than people whose living comes from unearned income. 2. The Republican platform against abortion, even in the case of rape or incest, is a losing position. I get the moral argument Paul Ryan and others are making, but government has no business enforcing moral standards that are not widely accepted by the public. Look at what happened with Prohibition. 3. Obama is sitting on a $5 trillion debt problem, but Bush created the first $1.3 trillion of it. Why should I believe that Republicans really will shrink the size of government? I have more, but let's start with those.
Jim Hatherley November 02, 2012 at 05:48 PM
Thanks, GM, but with the election only 4 days away I need to be very direct with you because i cannot tell if you are undecided or just another Democrat-light person who wants gov't to oversee our lives without thinking sufficiently about the voluntary loss of liberty that goes along with that. Your first proposition is wrong. People like Romney - and every person who has invested in Apple - first pay their income tax. If they have disposable money left over, they can choose to take a risk of a) losing an investment in a stock or b) i making a profit. One Democrat in this or another string whined about the same thing - then confessed that he prematurely sold his Apple stock at $300. The abortion argument is stupid on both extremes. Yes, the Republican platform (not Romney's position) is too stark. But the Democrat platform allowing late term and partial birth abortion is infanticide. If you are a loon on either side, it's a big deal. If not, move on. Please do not compare Bush's spending with Obama's. Bush was no conservative. However, compared with Obama, Bush was a cheapskate. If you have do not have children or grandchildren - or if you do not care about their futures - vote for Obama and stop the equivocating. You will get what you deserve if he wins. Sadly, everyone else will get stuck with his irresponsible legacy as well. The Country is at stake. What do you want America to be? Easy answer for me, and hopefully a correct choice for you.
Chris L. November 02, 2012 at 08:08 PM
If there is already a Department of Commerce, why does Obama want to create a Secretary of Business cabinet position? Because he can create a new federal Department of Business, "create" a few thousand government jobs, and claim he's helping the unemployment numbers by putting more Americans to work. Now let me use an analogy people can understand. If one parent works outside the home, thus creating a single revenue stream for the household, that parent is not "stimulating the economy" by giving his kids an allowance. He's just spending more of his own money. There's not any more money coming in to offset the kid's allowance, therefore, its not a positive move for the budget of that household. Now tell me....where is the money for the Secretary of Business going to come from?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »